Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests/Archive 69

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Editor assistance. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.

Archive 65

←

Archive 67

→

Typo Team - Administrator

Answered

– Possibly? Jezhotwells (talk) 19:37, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I have looked around the Typo Team site and cannot find a sole administrator that I can contact to ask a question. I ended up here.

Can you please advise me who I can contact or how I can find a contact?

Or alternatively, answer my question:

How do I change spelling mistakes in redirect headers? They do not appear on the "edit this page".

Thanks And sorry if I have contacted the wrong person/group.

Andrea Mercier ANLOME —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anlome (talk • contribs) 12:52, 4 February 2010

Hello, it's perfectly fine to ask here. Could you give us an example? I'm not 100% sure what you mean, but some redirects are misspelled on purpose, so that if a user searches for a subject using a common misspelling, it goes directly to the article they're after. (see Category:Redirects from misspellings) Not sure if that's what you mean though. --Beloved Freak 12:59, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Machiavelli and The Mayflower

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 19:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I have 2 editors who have marked my page for deletion in my view without justification. 1 I was asked to add links because the article was orphaned, I did so and was told now that there are too many; the article concerns European culture as it relates to religion and to politics; that is a wide area concerning many disciplines; 2 This is new work; others say that it is influential and original material and that it should be Wikified; 3 The novelty and the complexity of the work means that I, as the writer, am the best qualified to launch the article to ensure that the base correctly reflects the work; as time goes on, it will be added to by others; this has been unjustifiably considered a conflict of interest; 4 The 2 editors have not read the book and are not qualified to comment on content; 5 The article seeks not to promote as I have been accused, but to illuminate thinking on European cultural typology and the ideas are totally new; 6 One of the two editors has placed far lighter and far more meaningless material about a book &and got away with it; the fact that he appeared within a few days of the first appears to contradict the theory that there are no cabals Thanks for your urgent help before they destroy my work --Bgillesp (talk) 15:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)bgillesp

Please discuss deletion review at the deletion review page WP:Articles for deletion/Machiavelli and The Mayflower‎. Tb (talk) 23:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia Mentor Wanted

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 19:39, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Draft article at: User:Rod Viator

I'm new to Wikipedia and am in need of a mentor. I have created a page entitled Margaret Davis Teague. She was a fascinating person and did great work in the field of radiation biology. I have posted a bio and partial work on radiation biology and would like to contribute more. Specifically her book on radiation biology that she did for her doctorate dissertation. I need assistance on how to get this on Wikipedia. My hope is that other research scientist will review her work and find that one link to their studies that may be of benefit to all. Any assistance you can offer would be deeply appreciated. Thanking you in advance regarding this matter, I am Sincerely yours,Rod Viator (talk) 19:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)Rod Viator (talk) 13:09, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I have added the {{adoptme}} template to your talk page. This will alert other users that you are seeking adoption and someone should respond. I will take a look at your draft article and leave comments on your talk page as soon as I can. – ukexpat (talk) 22:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I've replied to this on your talk page (which shouldn't keep anyone else interested from chiming in as well). Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 01:19, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

"Blocked" for reasons unknown

Resolved

Hello,

I had a message in an inbox that I had "vandalized" the topics of "Jake" and "Fur".

I have never submitted anything on these two topics, and have never even looked them up. I am not a vandal.

How can I cease being identified as a vandal? I didn't do anything. Although I have no great desire to edit pages, I really don't want to be "blocked" for something I didn't do.

Thanks Jeff Cornelius, NC —Preceding unsigned comment added by Baritone275 (talk • contribs) 02:46, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Block was for IP-vandalism. Left not on talkpage. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 02:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Help with resolving duplicate article

Resolved

– as per ukexpat Jezhotwells (talk) 18:34, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

There are two of the same article. One is titled "67th Battlefield Surveillance Brigade" the other is "67th Battlefield Surveillance Brigade (United States)." I created the latter page in an effort to bring the page into the standard listing of such pages, see: "58th Battlefield Surveillance Brigade (United States)." The page, ""67th Battlefield Surveillance Brigade" needs to be either deleted or renamed to replace "67th Battlefield Surveillance Brigade (United States)." Basically, there are two of the same page and someone needs to correct the situation. Thanks, rdhclark. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rdhclark (talk • contribs) 19:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

You should have just opened a "requested move" discussion on the talk page of the original article, rather than create a duplicate article. That is the standard method for gaining consensus to change an article's title. We can still do that, but it will require your new article to be deleted so that the old one can be moved to that title. Would you like me to set up the move discussion on the old article's talk page for you? – ukexpat (talk) 19:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Please do. Thank you. comment added by Rdhclark —Preceding undated comment added 21:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC).

Done - please see: Talk:67th Battlefield Surveillance Brigade#Move request. – ukexpat (talk) 01:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Name Dispute

Resolved

I started a new article at User:Mlpearc/Flight Time and I wanted to move it to the main area, because other Marines and family members want to contribute to the article . I was in the process of moving it and I can't because of this article Flight Time. How do we resolve this issue ? Mlpearc (talk) 03:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you could call your article something more specific 3rd Reconnaissance Battalion (Flight Time) or Flight Time (3rd Reconnaissance Battalion)...Buzzzsherman (talk) 03:33, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

:Or maybe the other article could give the full name with the NICK NAME in quotes"". I know this is a fare site but a "nick name" over a name of six guys gave thier life's ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mlpearc (talk • contribs) 03:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Done moved bio that had no references to its full name!!Herbert " Flight Time" Lang --->Flight Time is blank for you ..pls hurry..........Buzzzsherman (talk) 03:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Very Much

I moved it again to Herbert "Flight Time" Lang removing the extraneous space. – ukexpat (talk) 20:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Tried to move got this [[1]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mlpearc (talk • contribs) 03:56, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Done article moved from your talk page!!..Buzzzsherman (talk) 03:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

my latest......

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:MovePage&action=submit —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mlpearc (talk • contribs) 04:07, 12 February 2010 (UTC) got it thanx Mlpearc (talk) 04:12, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

A problem with another user

Discussion moved

– as per below Jezhotwells (talk) 17:38, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Moving section to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#A problem with another user...Buzzzsherman (talk) 08:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

User page for Zscout370

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 19:35, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The user page, User:Zscout370, has a section soliciting personal contributions which seems rather inappropriate to me. I would appreciate input on where to report this if other agree with me. Jezhotwells (talk) 03:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Meh. If people want to give money to Zscout370, then all the more power to him and them. I'm not seeing it as a big deal. NW (Talk) 03:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Jez, did you bother even discussing this issue with the user in question before soliciting action? Zscout is a respected editor on this project, show him the decency of discussing with him before coming here with this post. This is childish and shows a lack of judgement. I sincerely hope that you do not behave this way towards other editors on this project. —Dark 03:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I have posted at the editor's talk page, I have not reported the editor anywhere, I am just asking if others consider editors soliciting money for their contributions is appropriate. Clearly User:DarkFalls and User:NuclearWarfare see no problem with this, fine. I await what others think. Please refrain from personal comments on this. Jezhotwells (talk) 03:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know, posting a remark on a public noticeboard such as this is reporting. Also note that I said "discussion". Discussion is not simply putting up a post on editor assistance, and then subsequently notifying the user. My previous comment is not a personal comment. I was simply commenting on the appearance of a personal issue with zscout in your request for assistance. Also I note how you questioned two of Zscout370's GAN reviews prior to posting a complaint about his userpage. I do not know what your issue with zscout is but posting in this forum as such is inappropriate. —Dark 04:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, I accept your points, but please try to understand my surprise at finding an editor soliciting money for work on this project. Zscout379 has pointed me to WP:REWARD, which I had not come across before. As I said to them, it is there and I accept that my point about this has been answered, even if I don't agree with the philosophy behind it. As to the query about the GAN reviews, that is a perfectly proper thing to do for reviews that appear cursory, and I have perfectly properly posted my concerns at WT:GAN. Jezhotwells (talk) 04:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I have no problems with your criticism of zscout's reviews, just the timing of the reviews with this post. —Dark 04:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

There is a definite conflict of interest if one is paid in money rather than just some barnstars to improve an article, see WP:PAY. There's less problem if a donation isn't linked to improving any particular article. I've been wondering about this a bit because payment in recognition may be good for improving contributions to wikipedia but people might want that to help with getting a job. I think one has to be a little lax until one sees a conflict of interest. Dmcq (talk) 12:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment. That section of the conflict of interest policy is poorly worded, because it can just as easily be interpreted as "a thoughtful editor can avoid a conflict of interest even while accepting payment." The discussions about paid editing haven't resulted in a resolution to this dangerous ambiguity, so perhaps it should be refactored into a policy discussion on COI itself.--otherl left 16:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

My Updates removed?

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 19:50, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi there, I am the artist known as Meck and someone has created a page here as Meck (Musician). I attempted to update this yesterday with an up to date biog. I have noticed today that my update has been removed. Just to be clear this is info on myself being removed someone I don't even know or can find to contact. So could you help/advise me on either (a) create another page taken so I can create add up o date an accurate news or help find out why my update were deleted by this person...who I take maybe a fan! Many thanks.

Dj meck (talk) 16:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)Craig Dimech (Meck)

Hope I signed this properly as I'm a novice!

link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meck_%28musician%29

You did a good job of signing, yes! As for your update - another user removed it for a variety of reasons that he explained in short fashion in his edit summary; the reasons would be clear to most experienced Wikipedians but not so much to a novice. (You can see the edit history of that, as well as any, page by clicking the 'history' tab at the top.) The edits were removed because they don't really match the tone of the articles in Wikipedia, which are supposed to take a neutral point of view, and refrain from promotional language or tone; also they were not sourced -- edits to Wikipedia should be based on identified, reliable, third party sources and not personal knowledge. Also, and probably most importantly, as the subject of the article you have a conflict of interest in editing it and *really* should avoid it. Here are a few links to Wikipedia pages that will help you understand the foregoing a bit better: neutral point of view; need for source material; conflict of interest. I hope this clarifies things a bit! JohnInDC (talk) 17:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Gerard Butler

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 19:51, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerard_Butler

There are two users who keep editing the content I am placing on the site desctructively. I am new to wikipedia and do not know how to file a complaint against their biased actions.

Gerard Butler is a representative of Artists for peace and justice - and I linked it to a page featuring a video of Gerard Butler stating he is a representative of this charity. However, wiki users: Woogee, Yworo keep deleting that link, and accusing of the information as biased.

They must be really dumb to wrongly accuse me of providing biased information. Gerard Butler says in the video he is representing the charity.

I have good reason to believe these two users work for HELLO MAGAZINE. This is because they deleted the links I placed, and kept re-inserting Hello magazine links.

Hello Magazine is notoriously known as being a bad source, because they sell inaccurate gossip for profit.

I want to file a complaint against these two users for biased conduct, and acknowledgement that the information I placed regarding Gerard Butler's charity work as being factual. I am entitled to put content on that page - as much as Hello Magazine.

I dont think it is fair that they are filing a complaint wrongly accusing me of vandalism. It is clear that both users are affiliated with Hello Magazine, and have a profit agenda for that organisation.

I require reinstatement and that the warning to be lifted on the grounds that they have ignored the video evidence to prove that gerard butler is working for the charity in concern.

Please resolve by helping me file a complaint against these users, reinstate my profile, and also enable me to put the factual information on the page.

If this is not permitted, I demand that ALL external links to be removed as proof that these two individuals do not have a hidden profit agenda and are not associated with hello magazine

Phantom244 (talk) 03:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)Phantom244

As I have repeatedly explained to Phantom244, his sources are to a fansite, and therefore are not valid edits, especially to a WP:BLP. If he wants to find some reliable sources, I'll have no problem with the edits. Which he has had explained to him about five times now. Woogee (talk) 19:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Undo

Resolved

– Jezhotwells (talk) 22:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

How would I undo two or more edits in one go; I have only worked out how to undo the most recent edit to a page--TimothyJacobson (talk) 13:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Rather than try to explain myself, this does it for me! Quantpole (talk) 14:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Quantpole, most helpful--TimothyJacobson (talk) 14:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

What To Do

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 22:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

[2]

[3]

[4]

Edit warring. How should I proceed. I have provided an edit summary. The first revert she only reverted because she didn't like it (she said she reverted it to the last consensus version [she did not explain why she did not like the versions]).174.3.98.236 (talk) 14:44, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Stop trying to change guidelines that you clearly are not neutral about and for which your edits have no consensus. You have run around to half a dozen WT talk pages complaining about "lists" and your disagreement with actual community consensus. Your edits were inappropriate and, as you were already told, get consensus rather than edit warring (and you are the only one edit warring). Some random IP does not get to set community guidelines to match his own personal beliefs and random ideas. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Eddie Cicotte Pronunciation Reference

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 22:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddie_Cicotte

The reference used to support the first pronunciation is taken from a blog page that is later clarified by the author.

"From the time he joined the Indians in 1908 through the season of 1920, Jack Graney faced Cicotte many times. He knew him well. He often told stories about Eddie Sigh-COT-ee. Some were humorous, others deadly serious, and all of them touched with sadness because Jack Graney had liked and admired Cicotte. But in the movie version of Eight Men Out, Cicotte was called SEE-cot. Why? Because in the 1950s Al Cicotte pitched in the major leagues. Not wanting to be associated with his infamous relative, Al pronounced his name SEE-cot. That was the pronunciation picked up by the film makers.[1][2]

The author (Dick Stodghill) later corrects this in a subsequent article. http://stodg.blogspot.com/2009/05/hopefully-clearing-up-mystery.html

I have pointed this out in the discussion section and added it as a reference. When I looked at the article today the new reference I added to Mr. Stodghill's correction is missing. If the original reference has been corrected or clarified by the author shouldn't it be removed or at least include a reference to the correction.

My preference would be to have the first reference removed entirely or at least replaced with a reference to the more recent clarifying article.

How is it that a family member who has done extensive genealogical research has less authority on how the family name is pronounced than some second hand report about what a dead sports announcer said? In my most humble opinion I think that incorrect and/or misleading references tarnish Wikipedia's reputation for accuracy and fairness. Please help me address the issue fairly.

Roncicotte (talk) 15:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Anyone can say they're eddie cicotte's relative, plz stop wasting everyone's time. Get a reliable source like everyone else does and we can talk. Soxwon (talk) 16:46, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Otto Zehm

Resolved

– Jezhotwells (talk) 22:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The following article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_Zehm

has apparently been edited by someone who is showing bias to the city involved. The text in question is as follows:

'It is important to note to the Spokane is the 2nd largest city in the State of Washington, with a equally large department. Every large department will have it's scandals, and it's problems as do many large cities. There have been a few cases as noted above, but in a larger perspective, and based on the size of the department, there is not a large number of scandals or investigations of misconduct, despite what one writer may be aiming for in this article.'

As an objective source of information, I believe it would be in your interest to make any corrections you find necessary.

-Lyra Borealis- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lyra borealis (talk • contribs) 16:53, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted all the recent edits by that IP user - clearly original research and non-neutral. The whole article needs a thorough review for tone and content, but I don't have time at the moment. – ukexpat (talk) 17:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Second Blizzard of 2010

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 22:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I live in Rockville Maryland and I have been getting effected by both blizzards. Shouldn't the title be The Blizzard of 2010 Round 2 because we still have over 2 feet of snow from the first blizzard? It should all be one blizzard because what makes this blizzard so big is that there is still tons of snow from round 1. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.156.179.114 (talk) 17:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. A blizzard is a single storm, defined by the strength of the wind. It is not defined by the total accumulation of snow from two or more snowfalls. So today's blizzard is separate from the one that dumped on us over the past weekend. – ukexpat (talk) 18:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Ed Blakely White-washing

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 22:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I am editing the page for Ed Blakely. Included was a section for "Cotroversey" based on legitimate, referenced (major metro newspaper) controversey surrounding the man. However my edits are being removed or replaced with PR-style "praise" -- which does not belong in the Cotroversey section. Clearly he or his agents are behind these. Can we put a lock on it? Mdelvecchio99 (talk) 20:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Pages are only protected in the face of persistent and current vandalism, see WP:RFPP. This looks like a content dispute and you are following the correct process by attempting to discuss with the other editor on their and the article's talk pages. – ukexpat (talk) 20:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Possible edit war regarding Additional source content and Youtube video linking

Resolved

– pages protected due to edit-warring Jezhotwells (talk) 22:20, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Recently user Gzdavidwong(a Chinese wikipedia admin)have tried to remove all the Additional source links and Youtube video links on Jiang Weiping, Five Constituencies Referendum, Christina Chan, and refuse to engage in any meaningful discussion. There were some sort of disputes between user Gzdavidwong and me herebecause I also edit on Chinese Chinese wikisource, Chinese wikiqoute, and Chinese wikipedia.

I would like to have the assistance of someone (possible an admin who understand both English and Chinese) to come to help resolve the dispute. Arilang ^talk 06:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Falsely accused of vandalism.

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 22:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

This talk page randomly came up today while I was browsing Wikipedia claiming that a page about Chun Doo-hwan was defaced. I checked and found out that it was my IP address. But, I didn't edit this page ever. I don't even know who Chun Doo-hwan is. I tried to make a report but I am stuck on the page after inputting the revert ID on the link I followed from the report page. It takes me to another site that gives me a few radio button options and no other information is displayed. I just don't want my IP to be banned as I most definitely did not make any edits to that page, and I'm confident my secure network wasn't hacked during that time, either.

I registered this account to request assistance in this matter as I cannot seem to proceed by making a report about Clue Bot. This is my only account.

AlphaWhelp (talk) 21:51, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Your IP address is likely dynamic, and is used by a number of other people in a rotating fashion. One of those people probably vandalized the article, and you were the first person to use that IP since the warning was issued (back in November, it looks like.) Don't worry about it - that happens all the time. Welcome to Wikipedia! I've left a welcome message for you on your account's talk page. Cheers! Tony Fox (arf!) 22:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I need help with mediation or perhaps arbitration with a user, I posted this before and it wasn't answer, PLEASE, I AM BEGGING SOMEONE TO HELP!

Resolved

– SPI requested Jezhotwells (talk) 22:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

(This is a repeat of a request I asked earlier, please some user give a response)

Hello, I am requesting assistance regarding a dispute between me R-41 and another user, Caremerger. We have engaged in discussions and bitter arguments over content in the article about Corporatism. He has repeatedly engaged in ad hominem attacks against me, accusing me of being "authoritarian", of deliberately trying to distort the article, and for the material I have contributed as being "absurd". It is my belief that he wants to make the article an attack page to disparage the topic of the article, which is not permitted on Wikipedia. Furthermore, he appears to be using original research by using U.S. Supreme Court cases and material related to Adam Smith to make arguments about corporatism when I do not think these sources say anything about corporatism. I have informed him about this and he does not seem to understand. Lastly, I admit that I have been very frustrated and at times aggressive with this user, which is not acceptable: I will accept any reasonable reprimand on me for behaving poorly to the user. He is right to claim that in the earlier phases of our discussions I was very frustrated and angry with some of the claims he made that I did not deem to be legitimate, but I have tried to ameliorate it through negotiation, the frustration remains with me however. But I must stress that I cannot seem to be able solve this dispute on my own, as he seems to be highly reluctant to cooperate with me. I REALLY need assistance here and am requesting mediation.--R-41 (talk) 23:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

You should follow content dispute resolution first. You should also issue warnings against violating WP:3RR and make sure that you observe the rule yourself. However I will look at the editor's history because his editing seems to be disruptive and he is defending a position that is not mainstream. The Four Deuces (talk) 00:13, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I did go through the dispute resolution, I attempted to make a truce, I offered solutions, I made concessions, the user will not stop. I'm sorry I cannot do anything more myself to resolve the dispute, I think arbitration is needed - he will not accept any rational arguments by me. Further he makes the dubious claim with no sources directly saying so that the United States was founded on the basis of opposing corporatism. I would be very pleased The Four Deuces if you could give him a warning to stop putting in original research into the article and to stop making personal ad hominem attacks. If I have to take some reprimands along with him I will take them. I am at wit's end. A resolution is needed.--R-41 (talk) 00:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

"United States was founded on the basis of opposing corporatism" Does he have reliable sources that say as much? I'm looking at the one URL in your most recent dispute and it appears to be a dead link. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 00:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

My first suggestion is to relax. It's clear that you're passionate about this issue since you posted asking for help and only gave us five hours to reply before you posted here again. Take that passion and try to focus it in a more positive direction. "There is no time limit for a discussion. If you are angry, take a break from posting or editing." (cool) ~a (user • talk • contribs) 01:00, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

By DR, I meant setting up an RfC. That brings in new editors. I do not think that warnings on PAs and OR would be productive, and there is no arbitration procedure for content disputes. Do you think that Caremerger could be a new account set up by a blocked editor.? (User:Immoral moralist at Fascism turned out to have set up different accounts to edit different articles.) The Four Deuces (talk) 01:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes that is a possibility The Four Deuces now that I think of it. I am not sure if it is that user in particular, but it could be a sockpuppet profile. I noticed that Caremerger's user profile was blank, and for sometime the standard "welcome to Wikipedia" statement that typically follows the addition of a new user was not apparent when I first noticed it. I am not sure how this Immoral Moralist user behaved, I remember him in discussions about the Fascism article. The Four Deuces could you investigate whether this user is a sockpuppet of a blocked user - it would explain a great many things about her or his behaviour. As for bringing in other users, I have just got a user to mediate between me and Caremerger, but I will follow your advice to try to get more users to participate in the corporatism article using the RfC protocol that you mentioned. Thank you.--R-41 (talk) 07:00, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I have requested an SPI here.[5] The Four Deuces (talk) 16:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I just went through a "Heated Debate" and the best advise I can give is Take some time off and then come back,It's easier and better to then focus, That's all I have but I Know it wroks.(It's hard to edit with your blood boiling) Good Luck Mlpearc (talk) 23:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Regional Power by States

Request unclear

– Jezhotwells (talk) 09:30, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

The regional power should include newly rising countries instead of relying soly on their very old documents. People want to see what is going on in the present, but not what just happened 10 or 20 years ago. I would like to add Vietnam to the list as a regional power of ASEAN, since it had great influence in Burma, Cambodia, Laos. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.184.204.40 (talk) 19:44, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

It isn't clear what article on Wikipedia that you are talking about. If you have suggestions, it would be best to make them on the article talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 03:31, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Abundance of Price is Right pricing game articles

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 14:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Between 12 November and 18 November 2009, the following debates all resulted in delete and merge into List of The Price Is Right pricing games:

However, on 16 November 2009, a similar debate, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Check Game, resulted in keep all articles listed with proposed mergers into List of The Price Is Right pricing games.

List of The Price Is Right pricing games already contains a great deal of information about each of these individual pricing games. At what point can/should the articles listed in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Check Game be relisted for delete or merely deleted and redirected? Based on the comments included in the Check Game proposed deletion, I'm concerned that this will result in a possible edit war if someone just edits the articles to redirect to the appropriate sections in the List of The Price Is Right pricing games, but as you can see the destination article contains core information about each pricing game and removes a lot of the minute detail that could be considered fancruft.

Any advice is greatly appreciated – Thanks! Sottolacqua (talk) 01:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Poke. Do any administrators have any comments at all? Sottolacqua (talk) 15:50, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I would be inclined to delete and merge the ones that haave had separate AfDs wiith that result. The fact that the summary of another AfD mentioned them in the keep conclusion was simply that there was clearly no consensus for a mass deletion. PS, I am not an admin, just an assitsnat here. Some admins do drop in but we are all assistants here, advising and pointing in directions. What actions you take are your responsibility. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Improper/ unlawful use of D.B.A- (damien steele vs. damian steele)

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 09:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

My name is Tim Fisher, who wrestled for a decade under the servicemark/ D.B.A. "Damien Steele" During a 2 year absence from wrestling. unknowingly, a man used the name... and was contacted by my legal representation, and subsequentially changed his name to "Damian"... replacing the "e" for an "a" to avoid leagal repercussions. The top header of his page, has a note to re-navigate.. if you want to see the "real deal"... Damien Steele... and connects to a page under my legal name, "Tim Fischer" (wrestler) ...(Fisher is spelled wrong) My page should be entered under the anme "Damien Steele".. and the other as "Damian Steele"

Other issues may be handled through editing.. but the issue of the entrance of a legally service marked name, is not only important... It was not availlable to edit.. by me.. the actual owner of the brand.."damien Steele".. and "The Real Deal Damien Steele"..

If you were to examine the pages.. you will see the timeline that shows I was in ownership of the name BEFORE the debut of the other party.

Thank you for your time Tim Fisher Damien Steele Buddywest (talk) 01:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

PLease disuss at the article talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:00, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

where is this stuff about South County? thanks.

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 09:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm running around in wikipedia correcting a systemic error that says Washington County is RI is referred to locally as South County. In fact, South County refers to the combination of Washington and Kent Counties.

There are two places where this error still exists, and I can't figure out how to get to them to edit them:

1. In the disambiguation when you ask for South County, at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_County it says South County, the vernacular name for Washington County, Rhode Island.

2. (later note - I found and fixed this one) and in the Rhode Island article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhode_island down at the bottom something is causing a block of info to appear that starts State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations and contains Regions which contains Counties: Bristol | Kent | Newport | Providence | Washington (South County)

Thanks.

Trudyjh (talk) 02:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The article talk pages are the place to discuss this. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Bonnie and Clyde

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 09:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

The article refers to a letter to Ford Motor Company from "Clyde Champion Barrow" (footnote 62) where it is indicated that his middle name is actually "Chestnut" - however I found in "FOIA FBI FILES - BONNIE AND CLYDE" (footnote 2) which is a PDF file that in this file on page 20 is a mugshot of Barrow with the id no "DALLAS 6048" and on page 21 (which is apparantly the typed identification on the back of the mugshots) he is identified as "CLYDE CHAMPION BARROW". Perhaps someone with expertise in research could examine these items and perhaps add to the main article. There could be some substance to the accuracy of the Ford letter and then maybe not. This could also stir up some controversy but this is not my intent. I was just browsing around drinking my last cup of coffee and picked this article to read. Good Luck to you all. Daddybill (talk) 02:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Please discuss at the article talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:03, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

"Bumper" Tormohlen

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 09:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

The title of your article on Gene Tormohlen, a former AAU, ABL and NBA basketball reads, for some reason, as "Bumper Tormohlen." "Bumper," was, in fact, a nickname given to him by Bill Bridges, his teammate with the Kansas City Steers of the ABL and St. Louis Hawks of the NBA, but he never used it in place of "Gene." He always went by "Gene Tormohlen," as a player, coach and now scout for the Los Angeles Lakers. This error, apparently, stems from the website Basketball-reference.com. Everywhere else on the web he's properly listed as "Gene Tormohlen," which is the name he's used since he was an infant. So, the title of his Wikipedia article needs to be corrected. But that's not something I can do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.87.125.124 (talk) 17:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Please discuss this at the article talk page first. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:05, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Economy of South Korea revert help

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 09:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm trying to maintain and clean up this article. It is heavily biased and the introduction reads poorly. There is also an excessive amount of irrelevant pictures (image stacks) in many sections. Currently another user continues to revert my edits. I admit that I revert the user's reverts. I've tried to start a discussion on the discussion page to assess my edits, but the user in question refuses to do so. The user also accuses me of vandalism for "blanking" (his words) parts of the page and removing sourced information, when I am attempting to replace excess information with balanced referenced information. If someone could provide some assistance or a third opinion I would appreciate it. Anawrahta (talk) 16:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Your points have been answered on the article talk page - please do not remove sourced information and accept that your perception of bias may not be the only point of view. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:44, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

assistance required for the Literary sources for the origin of the Romanians

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 09:36, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I ask for other editor assistance on Literary sources for the origin of the Romanians.

In my view, the current version of the article pushes for the following POV : "After the withdrawal of the Roman Empire from Dacia, there is no trace of a Romance populace or language in the territories north of Danube until after the Hungarians arrival."
The article is structured to present the appearance of the Vlachs (historic name for Eastern Romance people) as a "Descent from the territories south of Danube", and as "Historical Sources distinguished between Vlachs south of Danube and Vlachs north of the Danube".
While the article is supposed to present Literary sources regarding Romanians, a multitude of Literary sources about the Hungarians, Bulgars, Slavs, Franks, Varangians, etc. are filling the article, as if to emphasize how there was no trace in history of an Eastern Romance population or language north of Danube until after the Hungarian arrival.
The Literary sources that do talk about the Romanians and are present in the article, are arbitrarily grouped in such POV sections as "The Descent of the Romanians" and "The Roman withdrawal from Dacia" and "The Vlachs South of Danube" or "The territory of present-day Romania in the Migration Period"; other sources are grouped in "Sources by century".

Instead of the POV :"Romans retreat from Dacia > A lot of migrations > A lot of Hungarians Slavs Bulgars Franks etc. north of Danube > Vlachs descent from south of Danube", I have grouped the Literary sources by Century, and removed any source that deal not with the ROmanian people or language.
I consider that grouping Literary Sources by century forces no opinion on the reader, does not support a theory or another about where and how did Romance people and language become predominant in what is today Romania.

At this point, 2 Hungarian editors of whom 1 appears to praise the other (the "creator" of the POV version) for his edits, in the connected article Origin of the Romanians, simply revert my edits. Altho i have stated my reasons on the Article's Talk Page, their action is revert. Altho i have reported a 3RR, an admin considered there is no clear history of 3RR, and recommended me Dispute Resolution. Criztu (talk) 12:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Dear Criztu, please take also into account the following remarks:

The article follows the following logical sequence: (1) Primary sources of the origin of the Romanians (without any geographical distinction) - considering the fact that the origin of the Romanian people is a highly debated subject it is interesting what the first (Byzantine, Flemish, Hungarian, Russian and Romanian) sources suggest on this subject (for further details, I can refer, for example, to Victor Spinei (2009:47-176), Vlad Georgescu (1991:13-15); (2) The Roman occupation of Dacia - as (at least) one of the (at least) four theories of the origin of the Romanians claims that the Roman conquest of Dacia is one of the crucial moments of the ethnogenesis of the Romanians, these primary sources cannot be ignored (for further details, I can refer, for example, to Ioan Aurel Pop (1999:20); (3) The Roman withdrawal from Dacia - as (at least) one of the (at least) four theories of the origin of the Romanians suggests that the Romanians descended from the Romanized population which stayed behind after the Aurelian withdrawal, these primary sources cannot be ignored (for further details, I refer to Ioan Aurel Pop (1999:28-34), Vlad Georgescu (1991:8-11). (4) The territory of present day Romania in the migration period - as (at least) one of the (at least) four theories of the origin of the Romanians suggests that a Romanized population have been continuously inhabiting the territory of present-day Romania, primary sources describing it in the migration period cannot be ignored (for further details, I can refer, for example, to Victor Spinei (2009:47-176). (5) The Vlachs and the "Wallachias" / "Vlachias" south of the Danube - as (at least) one of the (at least) four theories of the origin of the Romanians suggests that the ancestors of the Romanians migrated from the territories to the south of the Danube to the territory of present-day Romania, sources describing those territory cannot be ignored (for further details, I can refer, for example, to Gábor Vékony (2000:180-204). Please also note that the different interpretations of the sources is also added, exclusively based on reliable (mostly academic) sources. Please also note that the article refers to the fact that based on solely literary sources nobody can conclude where the ethnogenesis of the Romanian people occured, other disciplines also have to be taken into account.
The claim that the edit you made resulted solely in the reorganization of the article seems to contradict to the facts. Whole parts of the well-sourced GA were deleted without explanation.
The claim that non-relevant sources were exclusively deleted seems to contradict to the facts. For example, the part from Nestor's chronicle which refers to Vlachs living in the vicinity of English people and Franks may have relevance to the interpretation of the part of this chronicle which describes the occupation of the Carpathian Basin by the Hungarians (for further details, I refer to Gyula Kristó (2003:31-32).
You think that the sources referred to in the article challange the Daco-Romanian continuity theory, but interestingly many excellent Romanian historians' view differs from this approach. They (e.g., Ioan Aurel Pop, Victor Spinei, Vlad Georgescu) still maintain the continuity theory, and their argumentation is presented in the article.

So I would like to suggest that we all should follow the example of the excellent Romanian historians who do not conceal facts or abuse the name of other historians, but provide arguments in order to strengthen the theory they follow. I think, for all of us, the primary goal to provide a full picture of specific areas of human knowledge - destroying well-sourced articles would obviously contradict to this approach. Borsoka (talk) 15:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

If you can't achieve consensus on the talk page then you could open an WP:RfC Jezhotwells (talk) 18:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

International Church of Christ

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 09:37, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

My issue is simple. The information is from a critic and not just a factual view of the organization. It has references that are from another denominational view and is very biased. When I went into the site to remove some of these views it would not allow for editing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrogersicoc (talk • contribs) 15:56, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Kai_Tak_Airport Article Video Links

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 09:40, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Madchester made edits removing links to YouTube videos and designated them as self-promoting. Unresolved discussion quoted below. Requesting input as directed by him.

=WP:COI Kai Tak and YouTube=

So, I need an explanation for some of your edits. You specifically deleted links to YouTube (not a personal site) but left up links to personal web pages on the same page. The YouTube links are the only existing public videos off the airport and do not reside on my personal homepage, I realize that the :user page on YouTube is mine, but how else could I upload videos to be publicly available?

If I were linking to a personal page, I might understand, but YouTube is for everyone. It would be the same as if I had uploaded it to Archive.org and lent a CC license to it and then linked it. It would still be on a third party website.

It is well within the EL guidlines "Linking to user-submitted video sites: There is no blanket ban on linking to YouTube or other user-submitted video sites, as long as the links abide by the guidelines on this page (see Restrictions on linking and Links normally to be avoided). Many videos hosted on :YouTube or similar sites do not meet the standards for inclusion in External links sections, and copyright is of particular concern. Many YouTube videos of newscasts, shows or other content of interest to Wikipedia visitors are copyright violations. Links should be evaluated for inclusion with due care :on a case-by-case basis. Links to online videos should also identify the software necessary for readers to view the content. For example, all links to YouTube videos should, if applicable, indicate that Flash video software or a web browser supporting H.264 is necessary to see the content."

Additionally, you left links to airliners.net which is a third party website with user generated content, like YouTube. I think you've taken the admin editing a little far. I had links to 2 videos out of the 75 that I have for Kai Tak. Hardly, personal promotion. They were of the two things people associate :specifically with the Hong Kong Kai Tak airport, the checkerboard approach and the low planes over Kowloon.

Where do you suggest that videos of a now closed airport should go? I either specifically filmed the video (origin of copyright) or have a collection of open source and Creative Commons Share Alike aviation videos. Again, YouTube is a third party website.

Excerpt showing the links you left and the two you deleted.

An account by a Kai Tak Air Traffic Controller - Phil Parker
Pictures from Kai Tak: Airliners.net - Jetphotos.net
Cockpit video of landing at Kai Tak on YouTube
Video of planes landing at Kai Tak on YouTube

Please explain, thanks.

airboyd (talk) 19:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

While YouTube is not a personal website... you've continually added external links to personal YT page/videos. That's to be avoided per WP:SPAMMER's provisions for self-promotion. If you feel your videos are worthwhile additions to articles, you should be bringing up discussion on a talk page to :see what if other editors A)think it's a valuable addition and B)if it's not deemed to be self-promotion for your own videos. Thanks.

N.B... and don't get me started on the potential Wikipedia:ELNEVER issues...because we never link to any (YouTube) videos that are not hosted by the original rights holder.... --Madchester (talk) 19:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I will follow your instructions for the talk page. I was hoping you'd provide general answers to the questions I asked prior to escalating the discussion to the next step. Maybe I don't have the dispute resolution guidelines down well?

1. Why leave a link to a personal Geocities (defunct) site, but take down other links you identify as personal?

2. What is your criterion for deciding what personal page is adding (Geocites site with personal photos and anecdotes) and that which is detracting (2 YouTube videos)?

3. How would one add pertinent valuable video while maintaining copyright flow, if not through a "neutral" third-party video site?

4. How are personal photos on Airliners.net any different than personal videos on YouTube?

I agreed with you previously, that my YT page was a personal page (as opposed to airboyd.com, which is a personal page), but it would have to be somewhat personal in nature to satisfy the copyright demands that you, quite rightly, state have to be met. The links were to specific videos and not to :my personal "channel." I have contributed 700+ , mostly open source and CC-BY-SA, videos on YouTube, I have less than 5 linked from the entire Wikipedia. I'd call self-promtion or spam-linking a bit of a stretch?

Checking my stats, Wikipedia is responsible for 000.03% of the 3,000,000+ combined views on the specific videos linked to the article out of more than 36,000,000 total views of all of my videos. What would I have to gain from less than 1500 clicks from here? Where is the self-promotion? Where is my :gain? I have been a contributor here as long as you have and turned down an admin request to help with the aviation pages. I have no need to be the most popular YouTuber, but was providing pertinent and specific video to the Kai Tak page. In regards to "worthwhile additions to articles," this is video :that no one else has online anywhere and specifically shows, visually, what the article talks about and I can verify the copyright source. I actually worked at the airport during 1997-1998. An example of this is the IGS Checkerboard Approach. I linked an actual video of it. It's very difficult to visualize :using the included text "...Upon reaching a small hill marked with a checkerboard in red and white, used as a visual reference point on the final approach, the pilot needed to make a 47° visual right turn to line up with the runway and complete the final leg..." unless you had actually been there and :seen it yourself.

It seems to me that having a video showing what the actual text from the article is describing is exactly what an internet encyclopedia should do. No?

Thanks for your time,

airboyd (talk) 23:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Discussion ended there with no further response. Appreciate any input. Thanks. - airboyd (talk) 18:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Generally Youtube is not considered to be a reliable source. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:22, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

BLP articles - meaning of "contentious" and "verified" / "verifiable"?

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 09:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I would appreciate comments about whether basic factual information about controversies in a person's life is *required* to be verified in an article when these basic facts are common public knowledge and not open to either dispute or interpretation. My reading of the BLP and verifiability policies does not clearly indicate to me that such information *must* be verified - only that it must be "verifiable" - whereas "contentious" material must be always be "verified" or else removed. Are basic facts which are not really in question - such as information about a well-known person having being arrested or charged with any offence - always considered "contentious" and must such information always be immediately "verified" in an article or only "verifiable" if challenged? I agree that such information should be verified - but is it actually required. Thanks in advance. Anglicanus (talk) 11:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The default assumption should be "when in doubt, bring a source." This precise issue is currently undergoing a major debate, and the way this question is handled might change and be clarified in the (very) near future. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people and subpages if you are interested in following these developments. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 11:35, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I read this discussion but I could not find any definition of what is actually meant by "contentious". My understanding of the word is that it indicates information about which the "factuality" is open to debate or interpretation - not that it is only "controversial" or refers to "controversies". Anglicanus (talk) 11:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

There is really no clear cut definition, but the term contentious often refers to poorly sourced negative information about the subject. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:41, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Hair design for Michael Jackson tour needs correction for credit - Karen Faye and Clyde Haygood

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 09:42, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Karen Faye Heinze – hair and make-up this also needs to include Clyde Haygood for hair design - its also listed in the movie credit As you can imagine, proper credit is extremely important for both Ms Heinze and Mr Haygood. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peggyfindit (talk • contribs) 14:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Probably it is best to post this on the article talk page and see if other editors agree. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Hugh Allison

Resolved

– Jezhotwells (talk) 09:42, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

A couple of paragaphs from a page I created a while ago (with the above name) have twice been deleted by different users. I have also mentioned this on the talk place, but as Allison is not someone very many peopl outside the London Fringe would have heard of, I doubt the talk page would ever be noticed. Could someone please explain why these paragraphs have been deleted -they refer to an adaptation of A Christmas Carol Allison directed- or, if there is no reason, perhaps they could be semi protected?--TimothyJacobson (talk) 15:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

You should ask the editors why they removed the cited material. If you get no response consider using warning templates which may be found at WP:Template messages/User talk namespace. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:50, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks--TimothyJacobson (talk) 16:24, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Churchill Museum and Cabinet War Rooms

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 09:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I would like someone to add the following new resource for anyone investigating the history of the Cabinet War Rooms

Richard Holmes. Italic textChurchill's Bunker: The Secret Headquarters in Wartime London (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2010)

Thank you, Ed Goedeken —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goedeken (talk • contribs) 17:43, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

You should suggest it at the article talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:29, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I Need Help So That The Templates Work

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 09:44, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Please help me fix these templates:

[6]

[7]!174.3.98.236 (talk) 23:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The template itself is fine, but is was not designed to handle tables. Looking at the template syntax, I do not see why it would be used for a table. Intelligentsium 00:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Please look at the talk page. I am trying to make the table on the wp:wtut to show up as a table, but changed the way the template means to change.174.3.98.236 (talk) 00:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

So you want to display the raw code of the table, and not the actual table? You first have to surround the wikicode with <nowiki> tags to prevent its being interpreted by the software as a actual call for a table. Intelligentsium 00:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

From this change, which I presume you made, it appears you are not trying to format the table's code, but rather the table itself. What final appearance are you pursuing? Do you wish the table's borders be coloured as well, or only the text? Intelligentsium 00:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Just the text. Would 2 shades of red be appropriate? One shade for the background, the other shade for the text? The reason I don't want any red for any borders is because there are no borders.174.3.98.236 (talk) 03:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

That would probably be fine, but the background would have to be more of a rose colour so that the text could be seen. If you are not sure, however, you could ask on the talk page. For future reference, one would use {{lt}} to provide template links, not {{la}}. Cheers, Intelligentsium 23:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. And how would I do that?174.3.98.236 (talk) 02:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I would strongly recommend that you do not. Please start a discussion before making any major changes—it seems your somewhat overzealous edits to that guideline have led to page protection due to a content dispute, which must be resolved before you can edit the page. To make a change, achieve a consensus on the talk page of the guideline, then use {{editprotected}} to request the changes be made. Intelligentsium 02:18, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Trust me, I won't. It should be perfectly possible to fix the templates so it fixes tables.174.3.98.236 (talk) 02:43, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Showing A Table But Only Some Rows And Collapsing The Rest

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 09:44, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Is there anyway to have a table such as in 1903_Tour_de_France#General_classification, but showing "ranks 1-10", and then collapsing the rest? I am trying to bring the two tables together, then collapsing the lower rows. How do I define how many rows to collapse?

see me.174.3.98.236 (talk) 00:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Help desk is the best place to ask. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Nevada State College

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 09:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I would like some advice about an ongoing editing dispute over the Nevada State College article. I am new to wikipedia. I updated the article with publicly available information (2010 tuition rates, financial aid lenders, lists of available majors, all with references), just basic data much like I've seen on other college's websites. I didn't add any "boosterish" marketing-type information that I thought would be non-neutral, just updating what appeared to be mostly 2008 data.

I noticed that my edits were immediately reverted by LuxNevada; looking at the history and talk pages I see that this editor has apparently reverted pretty much all edits of the NSC page for a couple of years, other than some minor section rearrangements suggested by another person.

Is updated tuition information not considered neutral? I feel like my changes were very uncontroversial, publicly-available data (for instance, the lenders are clearly listed on the NSC financial aid page). Also, several of the existing reference links are broken, so there's no way to look at them as sources.

It would be helpful to hear from a more experienced person if I'm misunderstanding what is appropriate to post.

Oklvnv (talk) 02:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I think its best you bring this up on the talk page for the article first Talk:Nevada State College ..Buzzzsherman (talk) 02:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

21st Lancers

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 09:48, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Good morning to you.

I recently aquired an old picture of my grandfather (EP Smith) which shows him standing in full dress uniform with Lances, when he was a in the British 21st Lancers Regiment.

The photo dates from the early 1900's and I think that it would look great on your Wikpedia information page (21st Lancers) as you currently only show the Regimental cap badge.

Thing is, I am not a techno-buff when it comes to computers so I do not know how to attach it to the page.

I have the scanned photo which I could forward to you as an attachment, I would really like to honour his memory so if you could use the photo I would be most grateful.

Regards

Mark Smith —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.247.169.147 (talk) 07:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for your question. The best thing to do would be to register an account at commons, and follow the instructions on how to upload a file there. However, one thing you have to be careful about is copyright issues. In the UK copyright exists for 70 years after the death of the author. For a picture taken in the first world war it could well be that whoever took the photo died less than 70 years ago, and so the picture would not be freely available for publication. (One confusing thing is that owning the picture does not necessarily mean you own the copyright to it). I'm not that up to speed with the exact requirements, so I suggest posting here for further guidance.

Thanks again for wanting to contribute this material. It would be great to have it! Quantpole (talk) 13:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Article by Saniyasnain Khan

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 09:49, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

The article by Saniyasnain Khan has been subject to vandalism. I would like it to be protected from this. Also there is a box with comments appearing before the article. I would like this to be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.163.249.254 (talk) 10:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi there, and welcome to the Wiki. About page protection of Saniyasnain Khan, it can be requested at WP:RFPP if it has enough vandalisim. About the comments, they are there to help inform editors what needs to be done with that article to make it better. (Sorry if I begin to sound a bit bratty) If you want it removed, then you can follow the guidelines in that box to improve it.

Regards,

Buggie111 (talk) 14:06, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The problematic sections of the article were removed in April 2009. Most of the tags were added before that date, and refer to the removed sections. I took out all but the "orphan" tag. The article is now very short, and doesn't tell much about the person. If some of the deleted content could be re-inserted in a neutral way at some future time, that would be an improvement. We should especially include info that is in the infobox. (An infobox should summarize an article, and not contain anything not found in the body of the article.) --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 14:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Blacklist

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 09:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Can you tell me why my site is blacklisted? 71.220.202.78 (talk) 18:07, 12 February 2010 (UTC)Herman Krieger, www.efn.org/~hkrieger

It appears to be blacklisted on Meta - the request is in this archive from 2007. I don't see a reasoning there; best to ask at the talk page there. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The reasoning is the listed contributions links at meta:Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2007-09#Herman Kreiger links. They show extensive addition of links to this site at Wikipedia's in multiple languages, by users with no other activity. At the English Wikipedia: Special:Contributions/Hkrieger, Special:Contributions/63.224.200.79, Special:Contributions/71.32.127.109, Special:Contributions/71.34.247.189. See Wikipedia:External links. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:16, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

What inclusion criteria does a college ranking have to have to appear on a college's page?

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 09:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello,

I am a relatively new user here and this is my first experience with this kind of thing. Also I have COI and work for GetEducated.com.

Some user deleted a part of Northcentral University's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northcentral_University) page under the Ranking section, where someone else (not me--I just replaced what was I believe erroneously deleted) had originally put a link to their ranking on GetEducated.com's Best Buy rankings list with the reason given "(→Rankings: get educated is nothing more than an advertsing for various schools. a agregator of sorts for getting information. It's ranking means nothing in the ed industry.) (undo) "

I don't know who this guy is to say that about GetEducated.com and delete the ranking off Northcentral's page. Check our Wiki page--the company has been around for 20 years and is very meaningful to the education industry, although we only deal with online education. If he has some reference for his claim from a reputable source he should go ahead and put it on the GetEducated.com Wikipedia page. Many other colleges on Wikipedia list their Best Buy Awards from GetEducated.com.

Anyway, I re-entered their ranking on the page and the citation, and discussed it on the talk page. But then I did more reading and realized I am in an edit war, which is the first I have heard of such a thing, and would like to avoid that and go by Wikipedia rules and standards. Should I revert my own addition?

-- Immaletufinish (talk) 18:57, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

First off, welcome, and thank you for your contributions. Unfortunately, the COI you have self-identified makes it likely that you should not be the one adding links to your employer's site. Furthermore, looking at the site, I'm not certain that it is suitable for use as a reference source in the other articles it has been added to. Could you please provide details as to the standards used and the criteria for inclusion? --Ckatz^chat _spy 19:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I just realized the inclusion and ranking criteria is at the bottom of each Best Buy List: http://www.geteducated.com/online-college-ratings-and-rankings/. Basically, they are the total cost of every accredited online degree program in the US ranked from lowest cost to highest. The Best Buy list in this case is the Regionally Accredited MBA's, and that is: "Note: Online Degree Rankings are based on GetEducated.com's National Survey of Online MBAs with tuition and fees based on publicly posted Fall 2007 rates for 390+ MBAs offered from 168 accredited distance-learning business schools in the U.S."

Just so you know, I have not and don't plan on ever adding any links to any college's Wiki article. I just would like to defend us against deletes and statements like in this situation, where people have the wrong idea about the site.

-- Immaletufinish (talk) 21:29, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Just a reminder--you said "Many other colleges on Wikipedia list their Best Buy Awards from GetEducated.com." I did say elsewhere that because folks without a COI had added info from your company's website to some articles, the company might be notable. However, per WP:OTHERSTUFF, you can't really judge any article by what is included in any other article, because Wikipedia is run by volunteers so articles get varying degrees of oversight. In each article you have to go with the overall Wikipedia guidelines and consensus. Just wanted to let you know. Katr67 (talk) 22:07, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

P.S. When you reply to someone's post, ident it by using a colon (:). Using more than one colon indents the paragraph further. You can see what I mean by looking at this post in edit mode. Cheers, Katr67 (talk) 22:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know that Katr67--that does explain a lot. So can you tell me how a judgement would be made on this in the article in question?

I think that adding the standards and criteria information Ckatz asked for above to our Wikipedia article in the section about our Best Buy lists would be a good idea for the future.

-- Immaletufinish (talk) 22:26, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

It appears to me that this issue centers around wether GetEducated.com is a reliable source (or RS). Frankly, whether or not a source is a RS is subjective and often a matter of debate. There are three points to make here.

1) If a debate arises around whether or not something is RS, you should try to work it out by achieving WP:CONSENSUS

2) After a quick review of the website, I would lean towards saying that this website is not RS.

3) As mentioned earlier, you have a conflict of interest, and probably shouldn't argue with an editor who tells you the source is unreliable.

Hope this helps. NickCT (talk) 22:43, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

1)I haven't read about Consensus yet, I will have to do that.

2)What about that the fact that GetEducated.com has been featured in Time, Newsweek, The New York Times, Forbes, Fortune, US News & World Report, The Wall Street Journal, CNN, and CBS News, among others. Doesn't that count for anything as far as reliability? Also we have been around as a consumer advocate for 20 years. I am not sure what a source would have to do to be judged reliable on Wikipedia that this company has not done.

3)There are rules you can follow and still contribute to Wikipedia if you have COS, which I have been carefully following. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Immaletufinish (talk • contribs) 23:06, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Serious Revision needed for "The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Lobby" article

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 09:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Israel_Lobby_and_U.S._Foreign_Policy

Why are two-thirds of this article criticism??

Not to mention that the one single paragraph that constitutes as the "praise" section is pretty much criticism as well. The way this article is written as of now is completely biast and ridiculous. And why is there a specific section dedicated to "Endorsement by Osama Bin Laden"? I think it´s safe to say the only thing objective about this article is the summary of the book-which, what this article is supposed to be about, is in itself only one paragraph. It seems to me that this article is in serious need of revision/editing for the current state it´s in is absolutely unacceptable ---escota —Preceding unsigned comment added by Escota (talk • contribs) 20:00, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Please raise your concerns on the article's talk page - that's the place to begin a discussion about content. – ukexpat (talk) 20:07, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Seeing as the last comment was posted over 5 months ago do you really see that as a viable means of restoring the validity of said article? ~escota 17:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC-03) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Escota (talk • contribs)

Yes, that's where you start, that's what the talk page is for. – ukexpat (talk) 20:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

New articles ??

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 09:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I am an professor and have defined two new terms. Both terms have never been defined before and are not presently listed in Wikipedia or any other dictionary. I have presented a paper on these terms at a national academic conference. I am also RE DEFINING two additional terms that presently have different meanings. How do I enter new definitions for these terms.

I find the navigation of Wikipedia extremely confusing and unclear. I would really appreciate clear step by step instructions on how to do this.

Joel Moffett —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.86.36 (talk) 23:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

pls do not add personal contact info!!

Hello there and welcome to Wikipedia...first thing you can search here, and the how to pages are listed here --->Help:Contents/Editing Wikipedia ...pls make sure to see -->Help:Contents/Policies and guidelines hope this helps a bit!!.. However pls read here also -->Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.........Buzzzsherman (talk) 23:16, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Also please note that verifiable and ~~reliable third party sources~~ reliable third party sources are needed for Wikipedia articles. Such sources would be peer reviewed academic papers or high quality news sources. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:11, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Is it just me or is the recent change to the WP:RS redirect a real PIA? – ukexpat (talk) 02:13, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

No it isn't just you. I don't know why that change was made, seems pointless and confusing to me. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:19, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Editing dispute (WP: New Guinea Singing Dog)

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 09:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Asking for a third party review the edit history of the New Guinea Singing Dog page. New Guinea Singing Dog Particularly from 12/30/09 thru 1/31/10. A new editor appears to have first tested the waters under ip's and then made speedy deletes of information showing extreme bias. You will see changes made without posting warnings or citation requests done just minutes apart and under both an ip and a user name. Also please review exchanges in talk pages as other contributors to this page have asked this editor to use proper procedure and to show some good faith or etiquette. Requests to undo the speedy deletion of information has fallen on deaf ears. tomcue2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomcue2 (talk • contribs) 07:34, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The article's talk page is the place to review this. I don't see the discussion you refer to; there is one about removal of text "copied from another website" (where the editor who removed it opened the discussion), and another about merging the article into another, with no admonishment about etiquette that I can see. You should avoid the term "speedy delete", as that refers to deletion of an entire article. There are no rules about wait times for undoing changes, and no need for removed content to be restored immediately; that can take place after a discussion about whether or not it should be included. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 10:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

My article on Surendrapuri

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 09:55, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello,

My article on Surendrapuri has not been moved to article space yet. I made the request more than a month back. Any reason for the delay ?

Thanks, Prasad Ganti —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sprasad ganti (talk • contribs) 19:31, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Well your article at User:Sprasad ganti/Surendrapuri has no references to reliable third party sources. I suggest that you find some and then let me know and I will take another look. I have left some useful hints and tips on your talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:44, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) Well we are all volunteers so it can take a while for articles to be reviewed, especially if you do not ask for it to be reviewed (WP:FEED is the best place). I took a quick look at your draft and the main issue is notability - the draft does not have any references to reliable sources to demonstrate how or why the subject meets Wikipedia's principal inclusion criterion. The tone is also a little unencyclopedic. Hope this helps. – ukexpat (talk) 19:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect Information

Resolved

– Jezhotwells (talk) 09:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello! I was reading the section about the Beach Quintuplets and there is a typo. The last line of the section says that Timothy Beach, one of the quints died from Sudden Infant Death Syndrome at the age of 4. This is not correct he died when he was 5 MONTHS Old. I am the younger sister of the beach quintuplets and that is how I know this is incorrect.

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.39.145.132 (talk) 21:22, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

If you have [[WP:RS|reliable sourcing for this then you could post it on the artcile discussion or talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:03, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I will make the change (clearly 4 yr olds don't die of SIDS), but do you have a source - newspaper or similar - that can be cited if it is challenged? I am afraid that personal knowledge is not a reliable source for Wikipedia purposes as it is not verifiable. – ukexpat (talk) 22:06, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Possible privacy issue?

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 09:57, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I have been in what appears to be an edit war over at Versailles_(Japanese_band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) concerning the name of the deceased musician, Jasmine You. His birth name was never published in any article, including the ones concerning his death (he was referred to by his stage name) yet a user continues to edit a name in there that cannot be sourced and proven to be his true birth name. Real or not, I think it's really disrespectful to post it since he never publicly stated his birth name. 58.85.178.223 (talk) 06:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

When you revert, it is a good idea to put a note on the other IP's talk page to discourage them from adding the material. If the additions from the same IP get out of hand report them at WP:3RR. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:57, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I have been doing what you are saying (I signed up for an account at last, by the way) but it's still not stopping people from adding his name, and now they are adding "supposed, not confirmed" after it. That's what unknown means, isn't it? Argh. I can't tell if it's the same people doing it over and over, so I'm not sure if it's even appropriate to report whoever it is. Gekkakou (talk) 02:01, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Randle

Answered

– Jezhotwells (talk) 09:55, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

John Randle (born December 12, 1967 in Hearne, Texas) played defensive tackle for the Minnesota Vikings and the Seattle Seahawks of the NFL. On February 6, 2010 he was voted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame. Born in Hearne, Texas, Randle was raised poor, and worked odd jobs when he was young.

Mr. Randle was actually from Mumford TX. Hearne was the nearest town but I think Mumford should be cited in the above paragraph somehow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.97.83.128 (talk) 18:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

If you have reliable sourced information please post it at the article talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure where the talk page is, here are 3 sources, 1st source is the end of the 2nd paragraph:

http://www.startribune.com/sports/vikings/84278602.html?page=2&c=y

2nd source is here:

http://www.kbtx.com/nationalsports/headlines/83676837.html

3rd source is paragraphs 6 and 7

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1006027/index.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.97.83.128 (talk) 21:57, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

If you are looking at the article the talk page is marked with a tab at the top which says discussion if you are not logged in. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:00, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I have copied your post to the talk page but none of those sources say he was born in Mumford, just that he was raised there. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:09, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Reporting Vandalism

Resolved

– vandalism reverted, pointers given Jezhotwells (talk) 02:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I do not know much about wiki but I wanted to report vandalism of the following article link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perkasie_Tunnel

Specifically this paragraph is a useless story that pertains nothing to the article.

The Opening of the Underworld

Over the summer of 2009, a group of people were walking through the tunnel at a time relatively close to 7 PM. They were walzting along and singing Miley Cyrus songs. Or Hannah Montana songs. It is unsure which persona of the child star it was. The reached the middle of the tunnel and the earth began to shake. Immediately, they began to run to the nearest exit, because, as they assumed, a train was coming. Suddenly, the floor opened up and the fattest friend fell through. The person fell into another tunnel which led to the North Pole. It is rumored that the North Pole is the reason why it is cold in the tunnel. Also, once arriving at the North Pole, the person turned into a bird and that is why there are birds on the earth.

I need to do more reading into wiki how I could of handled this matter by myself. Such as; if I can just delete it totally.

Rek4385 (talk) 02:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)rek4385

Thanks for reporting it - I have reverted the vandalism in this edit. Take a look at WP:REVERT, that should explain the process. – ukexpat (talk) 02:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

For Deletion

Resolved

– Sent to Afd. – ukexpat (talk) 20:36, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Glenn Docherty http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenn_Docherty

I found this article which appears to be blatant self-serving political advertising. Could somebody take a look at it please.

Thanks

--Happy Angus 11:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benhtims (talk • contribs)

Thanks for that - I have nominated it for deletion at WP:Articles_for_deletion/Glenn Docherty (2nd nomination). Jezhotwells (talk) 12:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Request for page move of Lake_worth_monster to Lake_Worth_Monster

Resolved

– page move effected Jezhotwells (talk) 11:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello,

Can someone move Lake_worth_monster to Lake_Worth_Monster? I see that the other "Monsters" in the "Similar alleged creatures in North America" section of the Bigfoot page all have a capital "Monster" and of course the Loch Ness Monster has a capital Monster.

Thanks, 99.150.255.75 (talk) 04:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this proposed move and the rationale for conformity with other articles in Category:Hominid cryptids and have moved the page. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Dispute assistance request

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I feel that I am being harassed and bullied by some editors, mainly Flowanda. Accusing me falsely and carrying on a campaign of tagging my articles with “conflict of interest” notes. I have had issues with other editors, such as Largo Plazo and Mijotoba, but I believe we were able to solve the issues in a civilized, well discussed and somewhat cordial manner. With Flowanda I have extensively tried to reason, discuss and negotiate, to no avail. Her last posting, today at 7:25, on my User talk:Grancafé, I find it to be inappropriate, uncalled for and a clear sign of provocation. I have avoided any arguments or confrontations, but she simply won’t let go. Thus, I feel that I must initiate a Dispute Resolution Request, to have a third neutral party look into this matter. I must request a revision of all the deletions that she has made to my articles, and more specifically, I need to get her of my back. Her constant harassment makes me feel very uncomfortable. I thank you in advance for you valuable help, prompt assistance and kind advice. --Grancafé (talk) 15:40, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

From a quick look at your talk page, it appears that you have been engaged with very civil discussions with other users who are trying to resolve conflicts between several people on several articles. In other words, it looks like you are all doing fine so far! But it also appears you have been receiving admonishments and advice about your edits, and (without looking at the actual edits) you are probably being given advice you should seriously consider. Taking all this into account, it is understandable that many of your edits would be tagged. I don't think the talk page comment you refer to [8] is terribly uncivil or out of line, though I haven't seen the discussion which led to it, which is presumably on another page. Considering the history of the situation, I don't think a massive revert of another editor's changes to yours, is appropriate. Such things are almost never done, except in the case of vandalism, which is not what's happening here. I think you just need to continue discussing your changes, possibly BEFORE you make them, to get consensus first, if these changes are controversial. As I said, you seem to be doing okay up to now. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 16:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your prompt and insightful response. As you correctly have noticed, I try to be very polite and civilized. I am a “novice” wikipedian editor, which means that I am new to Wikipedia. But it seems that Flowanda is going to pick up an issue with this, and I do not appreciate her belligerent attitude and tone. Going one step further on my complaint, how could I get this issue of “conflict of interest” resolved? I don’t appreciate this false accusation and I take serious offense, as it is an attack on my character, integrity and ethical behavior. Kindly please advice. --Grancafé (talk) 16:23, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

You have made 1500 edits and demonstrated an ability to understand the basics of Wikipedia. I don't consider you a novice. Assuming that Flowanda is saying you should not use "novice status" as an excuse, because you aren't one, you should probably take it as a compliment. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 18:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Further reasoning and argument

In furtherance to my defense, I would like to quote the following COI guidelines:

"A Wikipedia conflict of interest (COI) is an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, Which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor."

As a member of the Ospina family and business, I can provide references which are compatible with the notable and verifiable guidelines that others may not be aware of. I want to make sure that the articles I work on meet and exceed all Wikipedia guidelines, and I welcome the different views of others to make my contributions more encyclopedic.

I have met this requirement of the COI guidelines:

"Editors with COIS are strongly encouraged to declare their interests, both on their user pages and on the talk page of any article they edit, particularly if those edits may be contested. Most Wikipedians will appreciate your honesty. "

I ask that all editors:

Remember: an editor with a self-evident interest in the matter turning up on the talk page is an indication that they are playing it straight. Even if the changes they advocate are hopelessly biased, treat them with respect and courtesy, refer to policy and sources, and be fair.

All text created in the Wikipedia main namespace is subject to rules covering criteria for articles (what Wikipedia is not); encyclopedic quality (verifiability and original research); editorial approach (neutral point of view), as well as the Wikipedia copyright policy.

Who has written the material should be irrelevant so long as these policies are Closely adhered to. The imputation of conflict of interest is not by itself a good reason to remove sound material from articles. However, an apparent conflict of interest is a good reason for close review by the community to identify any subtle bias.

Wikipedia: Vested interest states: "This does not mean such editors' arguments should be dismissed as ARISING from a Wikipedia: Conflict of interest."

I think I have complied to the best of my ability to be fair, neutral and objective. I want to continue to work with editors and make these articles as encyclopedic as possible. I appreciate the continued "close review by the community to identify any subtle bias". That said, please remember what it was like to be a new editor, and have patience with me. Thanks again, --Grancafé (talk) 17:04, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

PS. According to Wikipedia’s own definition of conflict of interest ,(COI) is an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor. My aims and goals are, by no means, in opposition to Wikipedia's nature, principles, rules or procedures. I have reiterated my alliance to these rules and principles. Thus, I do not see how a “conflict of interest” accusation could be substantiated against me. Thank you. --Grancafé (talk) 17:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Please try to stop regarding mention of your possible conflict of interest as an "accustation". It is merely a fact. I reproduce part of the lead from WP:COI:

COI editing is strongly discouraged. When editing causes disruption to the encyclopedia through violation of policies such as neutral point of view, what Wikipedia is not, and copyright compliance, accounts may be blocked. COI editing also risks causing public embarrassment outside of Wikipedia for the individuals and groups being promoted.[1]
Editors with COIs are strongly encouraged to declare their interests, both on their user pages and on the talk page of any article they edit, particularly if those edits may be contested. Most Wikipedians will appreciate your honesty. Editors who disguise their COIs are often exposed, creating a perception that they, and perhaps their employer, are trying to distort Wikipedia.
When investigating possible cases of COI editing, Wikipedians must be careful not to reveal the identity of other editors. Wikipedia's policy against harassment takes precedence over this guideline on conflict of interest. An editor's conflict of interest is often revealed when that editor discloses a relationship to the subject of the article to which the editor is contributing. Where an editor does not disclose an existing affiliation or other conflict of interest, carefully following Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy may help counteract biased editing.
Even though most COI editing is discouraged, in limited cases some edits from COI editors may still be welcome. See the non-controversial edits section below.

That seems pretty clear cut to me. Read and understand. There really isn't any more to be said. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:19, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

A conflict of interest (COI) occurs when an individual or organization is involved in multiple interests, one of which could possibly corrupt the motivation for an act in the other.

A conflict of interest can only exist if a person or testimony is entrusted with some impartiality; a modicum of trust is necessary to create it. The presence of a conflict of interest is independent from the execution of impropriety. Therefore, a conflict of interest can be discovered and voluntarily defused before any corruption occurs. --Grancafé (talk) 17:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Again, I haven't looked at your contributions, but COI is not just about association with an organization, it is also about displaying passion or zeal toward or against topics that you edit. This can happen without your realizing it. Under the circumstances, I recommend you and the other editors view your work as a collaborative effort, rather than individuals working separately and in conflict. When considering changes that might be controversial, discuss your proposals and reasons for them on talk pages, and get agreement before making the changes in the articles. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 18:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Once again, thank you. I appreciate your comment on COI. My understanding is that an editor may have a vested interest, but as long as he or she can yield to and abide by fundamental principles of Wikipedia, there is no conflict of interest. I might be wrong in my interpretation of terms and I am not trying to change anything. Now, regarding on working with other editors on a collaborative effort, I think I have demonstrated so. I am willing to learn and be part of the team. What I do not appreciate is false accusations, misguided comments and belligerent interaction. I try to be very cordial, respectful and civilized. I am sure my track record of editing clearly reflects this. All I have asked these editors to do is to advice with cordiality and understanding, and to tone down their belligerent tone. Thanks, --Grancafé (talk) 19:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

All I am asking for is that you (A Knight Who Says Ni) or a high ranking administrator to settle this dispute about COI. If Wikipedia administrators want to call it a COI, then so be it. I have tried to explain my reasoning and understanding of the matter, but if it is a “definition” issue, I am willing to accept it, drop the case and move on. Simple as that. Thanks, --Grancafé (talk) 19:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment I'd like to draw the attention of anyone considering Grancafé's concerns to this part of his Talk page where I had been addressing these same comments before I fully realized that he is conducting the same discussion here. He has a habit of doing this, conducting the same discussion in multiple places, making it very difficult for one person to take into account everything that has been said in response to him. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:55, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Grancafé appears to labouring under the misapprehension that admins settle disputes - they don't. Disputes are settled by consensus and if they cannot be so settled, there are escalating levels of dispute resolution. Admins just have a few extra tools available to them to keep the place running (somewhat) smoothly, they are not content referees. – ukexpat (talk) 20:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the clarification and advice. It is good to know. I am just trying to follow the proper procedure in the chain of command. Could you please tell me what is the next step of inquiry? Is it a request for comment, arbitration or dispute resolution? Thanks, --Grancafé (talk) 21:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, working with other editors to achieve consensus is the best course of action. Asking for a third opinion might be a useful step. Disagreements between editors are not always solved by RfCs and I don't think that arbitration is a useful option for you at this stage. I suggest that you listen to other editors and respect their opinions. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I thank you for your advice as well. You seem to be a more seasoned editor. I am not being disrespectful towards any editor. I am only requesting “clarification” as to the meaning and definition of COI in Wikipedia. To me, it seems ambiguous and inconclusive. This is why I am requesting clarification. Have you read all my arguments and reasoning? I am not seeking for an argument or confrontation. All I am asking for is a CLEAR and LOGICAL definition. As I stated above, if that is the accepted norm, interpretation and understanding, then there is no further discussion. End of story. My point is this: If an editor accepts and recognizes Wikipedia’s interest to be of utmost concern, where is the COI? Perhaps I don’t get it, and that is why I am asking for a simple and clear interpretation of its meaning and application. --Grancafé (talk) 23:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I am also asking for certain editors to show respect, courtesy and restrain. That’s all. --Grancafé (talk) 23:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

You wrote, above, "My aims and goals are, by no means, in opposition to Wikipedia's nature, principles, rules or procedures. I have reiterated my alliance to these rules and principles." In multiple cycles over a period of at least six weeks:

People edited text that you had written that was inconsistent with Wikipedia's guidelines. This included material that showed an abundance of COI problems, amounting to glorification of your family members, crowing over their achievements and how important they all were to the success of Colombia and its coffee industry, repeating characterizations of their accomplishments multiple times, and speaking in grand language.
You protested that your article had been "mutilated" (your word) and demanded an explanation. You complained bitterly and argued that you didn't understand what was wrong with the way you had written the article, and bemoan the fact that you were being prevented from telling stories about several people well beyond the bounds of what the article was about.
When given detailed explanations, you reacted in a polished, well-mannered way, the same demeanor you are showing here. You would thank the writer profusely for his experience and patience and vowed to learn the ways of Wikipedia and take them into consideration, swearing "alliance to these rules and principles".
Then you would turn around and do what you wanted, restoring material that had been deleted, creating the same problems all over again, and the cycle would go back to the beginning. In subsequent iterations, you would act shocked, as though no one had explained anything to you before, and you would be just as indignant as the previous time around..

Yet you stand here now and plead innocently that you can't imagine why anyone would think you had a conflict of interest, and claim to be perplexed that note of your obvious and repeatedly demonstrated COI is being made.

Your representation of the situation is false, and you are showing a complete unwillingness to listen to the guidance of those whom you have already thanked for their (our) guidance, because you don't like the outcome, and now you are shopping around to find someone with a different view.

I am including this commentary here because while we have certainly hashed it out before on your talk page, but you have deleted most of that discussion, and anyone considering your claim is entitled to the full background. —Largo Plazo (talk) 23:44, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, I think we have the picture here. This is a case of forum shopping. Pointers and explanations have been given. Further discussion is pointless. WP:EAR is aimed at helping those who choose to listen. I shall archive this. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:20, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.